STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT · 2010. 8. 25. · stanislaus county planning...

STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

September 2, 2010

STAFF REPORT

USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2010-07ASSALI FARMS

REQUEST: TO ALLOW THE UPGRADING/EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING ALMONDHULLER/SHELLER ON 57.8± ACRES IN THE A-2-40 (GENERALAGRICULTURE) ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8618 E.WHITMORE AVENUE, BETWEEN GEER ROAD AND BERKELEY AVENUE, INTHE HUGHSON AREA.

APPLICATION INFORMATION

Applicant/Property Owner: Frank Assali, Assali Farm Properties, L.P.Agent: Jim Freitas, Associated Engineering Group,

Inc.Location: 8618 E. Whitmore Avenue, between Geer

Road and Berkeley Avenue, in the Hughsonarea

Section, Township, Range: 14-4-10Supervisorial District: Two (Supervisor Chiesa)Assessor’s Parcel: 018-055-017Referrals: See Exhibit F

Environmental Review ReferralsArea of Parcels: 57.8± acresWater Supply: Water wellSewage Disposal: Septic/leach field systemExisting Zoning: A-2-40General Plan Designation: AgricultureCommunity Plan Designation: Not applicableWilliamson Act Contract No.: 74-1708Environmental Review: Negative DeclarationPresent Land Use: Almond orchards, huller/sheller and office

building, packing/grading and office building,and warehouse buildings

Surrounding Land Use: Almond and walnut orchards, scatteredsingle-family dwellings, and the City ofHughson

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This is a request to allow the upgrading/expansion of an existing almond huller/sheller. Theupgrade would include building two new warehouses (12,000 and 20,000 square feet) and thecurrent 2,560 square foot huller/sheller building being demolished and replaced/expanded with a6,400 square foot huller/sheller building. The upgrade does not include any additional employees.

1

UP 2010-07Staff ReportSeptember 2, 2010

The upgrade is to allow the nuts to be stored inside the proposed warehouses instead of outsideand to upgrade some of the existing hulling equipment and extend the building to protect theequipment from the weather. The hours of operation are seasonal, from the end of August throughDecember, seven (7) days a week, 24-hours a day with a maximum of 15 employees. During theoff-season, the office will only be open Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The project site is located at 8618 E. Whitmore Avenue, between Geer Road and Berkeley Avenue,in the Hughson area. The site currently consists of almond orchards, a huller/sheller and officebuilding, a packing/grading and office building, and two warehouse buildings. The property issurrounded by agricultural operations, scattered single-family dwellings, and the City of Hughson.

DISCUSSION

On January 9, 1990, Use Permit Application No. 89-42 - Frank Assali was approved to expand anexisting almond hulling and weighing operation on the current site. A use permit may only beexpanded by up to 25% with issuance of a staff approval permit. Since this proposed project isgreater than a 25% expansion, the applicant must apply for a new use permit. The applicationstates the reason for this upgrade is to aid in the modernization of the huller/sheller operation whichincludes development of buildings to accommodate and protect new equipment and make theoperation more efficient.

The proposed use is classified by Section 21.20.030 of the Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinanceas a Tier One use. Tier One uses consist of uses closely related to agriculture which areconsidered to be necessary for a healthy agricultural economy and may be allowed when thePlanning Commission makes the following findings:

• The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use or building applied foris consistent with the General Plan designation of “Agriculture” and will not, under thecircumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and generalwelfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use and that it will not bedetrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the generalwelfare of the County; and

• The use as proposed will not be substantially detrimental to or in conflict with agriculturaluse of other property in the vicinity.

The site is enrolled under Williamson Act Contract No.74-1708. In compliance with Section21.20.045 of the County Code, all uses approved on Williamson Act contracted lands shall beconsistent with three principles of compatibility:

1. The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural capability ofthe subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in the A-2 zoningdistrict;

2


2. The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeableagricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contractedlands in the A-2 zoning district. Uses that significantly displace agricultural operations onthe subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed compatible if they relate directlyto the production of commercial agricultural products on the subject contracted parcel orparcels or neighboring lands, including activities such as harvesting, processing, orshipping; and

3. The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land from agriculturalor open-space use.

Pursuant to Section 21.20.045, Tier One uses are considered to be consistent with the principlesof compatibility and may be approved on contracted land unless otherwise determined to beincompatible by the Planning Commission. The project was circulated to the State Department ofConservation during the initial two-week early consultation and 30-day Initial Study review and nocomments were received. This area is already developed on site with the current huller/shelleroperation and warehouses.

In December of 2007, Stanislaus County adopted an updated Agricultural Element whichincorporated guidelines for the implementation of agricultural buffers applicable to new andexpanding non-agricultural uses within or adjacent to the A-2 zoning district. The purpose of theseguidelines is to protect the long-term health of agriculture by minimizing conflicts resulting from theinteraction of agricultural and non-agricultural uses. Current buffer guidelines require a project toprovide a 150-foot setback, solid fencing, and a double row of landscaping around the perimeterof the proposed operation.

Appendix “A” - Buffer and Setback Guidelines of the Agricultural Element allows for alternativebuffers to be proposed provided the Stanislaus County Planning Commission makes a finding thatthe buffer alternative provides equal or greater protection to surrounding agricultural uses.Alternatives proposed by a project applicant shall be reviewed and supported by the StanislausCounty Agricultural Advisory Board prior to consideration by the Planning Commission.

On September 8, 2008, and November 2, 2009, planning staff asked the Agricultural AdvisoryBoard to support a series of ‘generic’ non-project specific buffer alternatives applicable to Tier Oneand Tier Two uses such as nut hulling, shelling, dehydrating, grain warehousing, ag processingfacilities (without incidental tasting rooms or sales), and other similar low people intensive uses.The Agricultural Advisory Board supported these alternatives.

The supported alternatives applicable to this project include:• Expansion of existing non-agricultural uses that are intended to improve efficiency and are

not increasing exposure to spray, shall not be required to meet the 150-foot setback; and• When trespassing onto neighboring property is determined not to be an issue, the fencing

requirement may be waived.

One of the main reasons for this use permit is to improve efficiency of the current huller/shelleroperation. Due to the fact that this project did not have to meet the 150-foot setback upon inception,and that the huller/sheller is currently on site with pavement and parking in front and surroundedby orchards, this project does meet the supported alternative buffer requirements noted above.Staff believes the required Use Permit, Williamson Act and alternative buffer findings can be made.

3


The services provided by the facility are an important component of the agricultural economy inStanislaus County and there is no indication this project will interfere or conflict with otheragricultural uses in the area.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project was circulatedto various agencies. Based on the Initial Study prepared for this project, adoption of a NegativeDeclaration is being proposed. The Initial Study and comments to the Initial Study have notpresented any substantial information to identify a potential significant impact needing to bemitigated.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the preceding discussion, staff recommends the Planning Commission take the followingactions:

1. Adopt the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), by findingthat on the basis of the whole record, including the Initial Study and any commentsreceived, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect onthe environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects Stanislaus County’s independentjudgement and analysis;

2. Order the filing of a Notice of Determination with the Stanislaus County Clerk RecordersOffice pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and CEQA Guidelines Section15075;

3. Find That:

A. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use or buildingapplied for is consistent with the General Plan designation of “Agriculture” and willnot, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health,safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood ofthe use and that it will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvementsin the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County;

B. The use as proposed will not be substantially detrimental to or in conflict withagricultural use of other property in the vicinity;

C. The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agriculturalcapability of the subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contracted landsin the A-2 zoning district;

D. The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeableagricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemedcompatible if they relate directly to the production of commercial agriculturalproducts on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or neighboring lands, includingactivities such as harvesting, processing, or shipping;

4


E. The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land fromagricultural or open-space use;

F. The alternative to the Agricultural Buffer Standards applied to this project providesequal or greater protection than the existing buffer standards; and

4. Approve Use Permit Application No. 2010-07 - Assali Farms, subject to the attachedConditions of Approval.

******Note: Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, all project applicants subject tothe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shall pay a filing fee for each project; therefore,the applicant will further be required to pay $2,067.25 for the Department of Fish and Game andthe Clerk Recorder filing fees. The attached conditions of approval ensure that this will occur.

Report written by: Carole Maben, Associate Planner, August 13, 2010Reviewed by: Bill Carlson, Senior Planner

Attachments: Exhibit A - MapsExhibit B - Conditions of ApprovalExhibit C - Development ScheduleExhibit D - Initial StudyExhibit E - Negative DeclarationExhibit F - Environmental Review Referrals

(I:\Staffrpt\UP\2010\UP 2010-07 - Assali Farms\StaffReport.wpd)

5

UP 2010-07ASSALI FARMS

AREA

SITE

6


ZONING DESIGNATION

SITE

7

UP 2010-07ASSALI FARMSGENERAL PLAN

SITE

8


ACREAGEACREAGE

SITE

57.8+/- ac.

9


AERIAL

SITE

10


SITE PLANSITE PLAN

11

DRAFTNOTE: Approval of this application is valid only if the following conditions are met. This permitshall expire unless activated within 18 months of the date of approval. In order to activate thepermit, it must be signed by the applicant and one of the following actions must occur: (a) a validbuilding permit must be obtained to construct the necessary structures and appurtenances; or, (b)the property must be used for the purpose for which the permit is granted. (Stanislaus CountyOrdinance 21.104.030)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2010-07ASSALI FARMS

Department of Planning and Community Development

1. This use shall be conducted as described in the application and supporting information(including the plot plan) as approved by the Planning Commission and/or Board ofSupervisors and in accordance with other laws and ordinances.

2. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Permits Division prior tooccupancy, if required. (UBC Section 307)

3. All exterior lighting shall be designed (aimed down and toward the site) to provide adequateillumination without a glare effect.

4. Should any archeological or human remains be discovered during development, work shallbe immediately halted within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualifiedarchaeologist. If the find is determined to be historically or culturally significant, appropriatemitigation measures to protect and preserve the resource shall be formulated andimplemented.

5. A plan for any proposed signs indicating the location, height, area of the sign, and messagemust be approved by the Planning Director, or their appointed designee, prior to installation.

6. The applicant is required to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County, its officers, andemployees from any claim, action, or proceedings against the County to set aside theapproval of the project which is brought within the applicable statute of limitations. TheCounty shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding to set asidethe approval and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

7. Developer shall pay all Public Facilities Impact Fees and Fire Facilities Fees as adopted byResolution of the Board of Supervisors. The Fees shall be payable at the time of issuancefor any building permit for any construction in the development project and shall be basedon the rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

8. The Department of Planning and Community Development shall record a Notice ofAdministrative Conditions and Restrictions with the County Recorder’s Office within 30 daysof project approval. The Notice includes: Conditions of Approval/Development Standardsand Schedule; any adopted Mitigation Measures; and a project area map.

12

UP 2010-07 DRAFTConditions of ApprovalSeptember 2, 2010Page 2

9. Prior to construction: The developer shall be responsible for contacting the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game and shall be responsible for obtaining all appropriatestreambed alteration agreements, permits, or authorizations, if necessary. Written evidenceof said contact shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of anybuilding permit.

10. Prior to construction: The developer shall be responsible for contacting the CaliforniaRegional Water Quality Control Board to determine if a “Notice of Intent” is necessary andshall prepare all appropriate documentation, including a Storm Water Pollution PreventionPlan. Once complete, and prior to construction, a copy of the Storm Water PollutionPrevention Plan shall be submitted to the Stanislaus County Department of Planning andCommunity Development. Written evidence of said contact shall be submitted to thePlanning Department prior to issuance of any building permit.

11. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, prior to construction, the developer shallbe responsible for contacting the US Army Corps of Engineers to determine if any"wetlands," "waters of the United States," or other areas under the jurisdiction of the Corpsof Engineers are present on the project site, and shall be responsible for obtaining allappropriate permits or authorizations from the Corps, including all necessary water qualitycertifications, if necessary.

12. Pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code (effective January 1,2010), the applicant is required to pay a Department of Fish and Game filing fee at the timeof recording a “Notice of Determination.” Within five (5) days of approval of this project bythe Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, the applicant shall submit to theDepartment of Planning and Community Development a check for $2,067.25, made payableto Stanislaus County, for the payment of Fish and Game and Clerk Recorder filing fees.

Pursuant to Section 711.4 (e)(3) of the California Fish and Game Code, no project shall beoperative, vested, or final, nor shall local government permits for the project be valid, untilthe filing fees required pursuant to this section are paid.

Building Permits Division

13. Development shall comply with current adopted Title 24 California Code of Regulations(Building Codes) and Stanislaus County Title 16 Code.

14. Site area and structures must comply with the American Disabilities Act. Accessiblerestrooms are required.

Department of Public Works

15. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any new driveway approaches on any Countymaintained roadway.

16. Public works shall approve the location and width of any new driveway approaches on anyCounty maintained roadway.

13


17. A grading and drainage plan for the project site shall be submitted with the building permit.Public works will review and approve the drainage calculations. The grading and drainageplan shall include the following information:

• Drainage calculations shall be prepared as per the Stanislaus County Standardsand Specifications that are current at the time the permit is issued.

• The plan shall contain enough information to verify that all runoff will be kept fromgoing onto adjacent properties and Stanisalus County road right-of-way.

• The grading and drainage plan shall comply with the current Stanislaus CountyNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit and theQuality Control Standards for New Development and Redevelopment containedtherein.

• An Engineer’s Estimate shall be submitted for the grading and drainage work.

• The grading, drainage, and associated work shall be accepted by Stanislaus CountyPublic Works prior to a final inspection or occupancy, as required by the buildingpermit.

• The applicant of the building permit shall pay the current Stanislaus County PublicWorks weighted labor rate for the plan review of the building and/or grading plan.A deposit based off of the Engineer’s Estimate shall be made prior to the plancheck, at the time of the building permit application (3% for projects $0 to $100,000and 2% for projects $100,001 and above). The applicant will be responsible for anycharges that are incurred over the plan check deposit. The plans shall not bereleased until such time that all plan check fees have been paid. Any fees left overfrom the deposit shall be returned to the applicant at the completion and acceptanceof the plan by Stanislaus County Public Works.

• The applicant of the building permit shall pay the current Stanislaus County PublicWorks weighted labor rate for all on-site inspections. This shall include a depositof 10% of the Engineer’s Estimate for the grading and drainage work. The depositshall be made prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Public Worksinspector shall be contacted 48 hours prior to the commencement of any grading ordrainage work on site. Any fees left over from the deposit shall be returned to theapplicant at the completion and acceptance of the grading and drainageconstruction by Stanislaus County Public Works.

18. Whitmore Avenue is classified as a 110-foot major roadway. The applicant’s engineer orsurveyor shall prepare an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for 55-feet south of the centerlineof Whitmore Avenue along the entire frontage of the project’s parcel. The Irrevocable Offerof Dedication will be submitted and recorded prior to final inspection/occupancy of anybuilding permit.

19. No parking, loading, or unloading of vehicles shall be permitted within the right-of-way ofWhitmore Avenue. The developer will be required to install or pay for the installation of allrequired signs and/or markings.

14


Department of Environmental Resources

20. Stanisalus County Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) contains descriptionsof the programs the county has implemented to reduce solid waste disposal in the Countyby 50% as mandated by AB939. Such programs include source reduction, recycling, andcomposting. Recommendations consistent with the SRRE, which should be incorporatedinto the project include:

A. Minimizing, through source reduction, reuse, and recycling, the amount of wastefrom the project that will require disposal;

B. During the construction phase, provisions should be made to separate recyclablematerial from the construction debris. Recovered materials such as wood, sheetrock, metal and concrete should be delivered to approved use sites or to recyclers;

C. Incorporate into the project, when possible, products that contain post-consumerrecycled materials. Construction materials that have post-consumer content includesteel framing, plastic lumber, carpeting, floor mats, parking bumpers, paint,lubricating oil products, glass, and window products;

D. Compost and other soil amendments necessary for project landscaping can beobtained from permitted composting facilities within Stanislaus County, providedsuch landscaping material is available and meets specifications. Considerxeriscape practices for landscaped areas within the project. Xeriscaping islandscaping with slow-growing, drought tolerant plants to conserve water andreduce yard trimmings; and

E. A designated area should be provided that would facilitate the storage of recyclablematerial containers at businesses and multi-family dwellings.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

21. The proposed project may be subject to District Rules and Regulations, including:

A. Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust PM 10 Regulations);B. Rule 4102 (Nuisance);C. Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings); andD. Rule 4641 (Cutback, slow cure and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance

Operations).

Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau / Hughson Fire Protection District

22. All buildings shall comply with the Hughson Fire Code.

23. Project shall comply with applicable codes and ordinances.

15


Turlock Irrigation District

24. An irrigation pipeline belonging to Improvement District 298, the Starn Branch of theMcMullen, runs from east to west along the north property line adjacent to WhitmoreAvenue. Caution should be exercised during the construction phase of the project tominimize any potential damage caused by heavy construction equipment traveling over theline.

25. The owner/developer must apply for a facility change for any pole or electrical facilityrelocation. Facility changes are performed at developer’s expense.

*****Please note: If Conditions of Approval/Development Standards are amended by the PlanningCommission or Board of Supervisors, such amendments will be noted in the upper right handcorner of the Conditions of Approval/Development Standards; new wording is in bold and deletedwording will have a line through it.

(I:\Staffrpt\UP\2010\UP 2010-07 - Assali Farms\StaffReport.wpd)

16

Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development

1010 10th Street, Suite 3400 Phone: (209) 525-6330Modesto, California 95354 Fax: (209) 525-5911

CEQA INITIAL STUDYAdapted from CEQA Guidelines APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text, December 30, 2009

1. Project title: Use Permit Application No. 2010-07 - AssaliFarms

2. Lead agency name and address: Stanislaus County1010 10th Street, Suite 3400Modesto, CA 95354

3. Contact person and phone number: Carole Maben, Associate Planner(209) 525-6330

4. Project location: 8618 E. Whitmore Avenue, between Geer Roadand Berkeley Avenue, in the Hughson area. APN:018-055-017

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Frank AssaliAssali Farm Properties, L.P.P.O. Box 69Hughson, CA 95326

6. General Plan designation: Agriculture

7. Zoning: A-2-40 (General Agriculture)

8. Description of project:

This is a request to allow the upgrading/expansion of an existing almond huller/sheller on 57.8± acres. The upgradewould include building two warehouses (12,000 & 20,000 square feet) and the current 2,560 square foothuller/sheller building being demolished and replaced/expanded with a 6,400 square foot huller/sheller building.The request includes a five-year/two-phase expansion.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Agricultural uses, single-family dwellings,ranchettes, City of Hughson to the west.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g.,permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.):

Department of Public WorksBuilding Permits Division

18

Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 2

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impactthat is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

9 Aesthetics 9 Agriculture & Forestry Resources 9 Air Quality

9 Biological Resources 9 Cultural Resources 9 Geology /Soils

9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 9 Hazards & Hazardous Materials 9 Hydrology / Water Quality

9 Land Use / Planning 9 Mineral Resources 9 Noise

9 Population / Housing 9 Public Services 9 Recreation

9 Transportation/Traffic 9 Utilities / Service Systems 9 Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)On the basis of this initial evaluation:

: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and aNEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

9 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will notbe a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to bythe project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

9 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and anENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

9 I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significantunless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed inan earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigationmeasures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

9 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because allpotentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVEDECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to thatearlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposedupon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Carole Maben, Associate Planner July 12, 2010Prepared By Date

19


EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by theinformation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer isadequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projectslike the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explainedwhere it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitivereceptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as wellas project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers mustindicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If thereare one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation ofmitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less thansignificant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect hasbeen adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope ofand adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whethersuch effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,”describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extentto which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potentialimpacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individualscontacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies shouldnormally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whateverformat is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) the significant criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

20


ISSUES

I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact

Less ThanSignificant

With MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but notlimited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildingswithin a state scenic highway?

X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualityof the site and its surroundings? X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which wouldadversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X

Discussion: The site itself is not considered to be a scenic resource or a unique scenic vista. Community standardsgenerally do not dictate the need or desire for architectural review of agricultural uses. Any development resulting from thisproject will be consistent with existing area developments.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determiningwhether impacts to agricultural resources are significantenvironmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the CaliforniaAgricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as anoptional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture andfarmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,including timberland, are significant environmental effects, leadagencies may refer to information compiled by the CaliforniaDepartment of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’sinventory of forest land, including the Forest and RangeAssessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided inForest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.– Would the project:

PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ofStatewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the mapsprepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and MonitoringProgram of the California Resources Agency, to non-agriculturaluse?

X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or aWilliamson Act contract? X

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined byGovernment Code section 51104(g))?

X

21


d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest landto non-forest use? X

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, dueto their location or nature, could result in conversion ofFarmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest landto non-forest use?

X

Discussion: The project site is enrolled in Williamson Act Contract No. 74-1708 and has soils classified as 100 percentPrime Farmland by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. This project will have no impact to forest land ortimberland. As far as the impact to the conversion of farmland is concerned, this area of the proposed project already haswarehouse buildings and a huller/sheller on site so any impact should be considered less than significant. This project willnot conflict with any agricultural activities in the area and/or lands enrolled under the Williamson Act.

Within the A-2 zoning district, the County has determined that certain uses related to agricultural production are “necessaryfor a healthy agricultural economy.” The County allows three tiers of related uses within the A-2 zone when it is found thatthe proposed use “will not be substantially detrimental to or in conflict with the agricultural use of other property in thevicinity.” The proposed use falls under the Tier I use category for the A-2 zoning district. Tier I uses are deemed “closelyrelated to agriculture and are necessary for a healthy agricultural economy.”

Section 21.20.045(A) of the Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance requires that all uses approved on Williamson Actcontracted lands shall be consistent with three principles of compatibility:

1. The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural capability of the subject contractedparcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in the A-2 zoning district.

2. The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable agricultural operations on thesubject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in the A-2 zoning district. Uses that significantlydisplace agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed compatible if they relatedirectly to the production of commercial agricultural products on the subject contracted parcel or parcels orneighboring lands, including activities such as harvesting, processing, or shipping.

3. The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land from agricultural or open-space use.

Pursuant to Section 21.20.045(B)(3) of the Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance, Tier I uses are determined to be consistentwith the principles of compatibility and may be approved on contracted land. In December of 2007, Stanislaus Countyadopted an updated Agricultural Element which incorporated guidelines for the implementation of agricultural buffersapplicable to new and expanding non-agricultural uses within or adjacent to the A-2 zoning district. The purpose of theseguidelines is to protect the long-term health of agriculture by minimizing conflicts resulting from the interaction of agriculturaland non-agricultural uses.

On September 8, 2009, the Agricultural Advisory Board considered and approved alternatives to the buffer requirementsfor Tier I and II uses such as nut hulling, shelling, dehydrating, etc. The alternatives to the buffer requirements note thatif trespassing onto a neighbor’s property is determined not to be an issue, then fencing is not required. If the project isexpanding to improve efficiency and it will not increase exposure to spray, then a 150-foot setback is not required. Theproject site area is surrounded by almond trees and the front area is paved with parking spaces. One of the main reasonsfor this use permit is to improve the efficiency of the current huller/sheller operation.

Mitigation: None.

References: California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program - StanislausCounty Farmland 2008, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1, Buffer Alternatives approved by theAgricultural Advisory Board, September 8, 2009.

22


III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteriaestablished by the applicable air quality management or airpollution control district may be relied upon to make thefollowing determinations. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable airquality plan? X

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially toan existing or projected air quality violation? X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of anycriteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainmentunder an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitativethresholds for ozone precursors)?

X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations? X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? X

Discussion: The project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which has been classified as "severe non-attainment" for ozone and respirable particulate matter (PM-10) as defined by the Federal Clean Air Act. The San JoaquinValley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has been established by the State in an effort to control and minimize airpollution. As such, the District maintains permit authority over stationary sources of pollutants.

The primary source of air pollutants generated by this project would be classified as being generated from "mobile" sources.Mobile sources would generally include dust from roads, farming, and automobile exhausts. Mobile sources are generallyregulated by the Air Resources Board of the California EPA which sets emissions for vehicles and acts on issues regardingcleaner burning fuels and alternative fuel technologies. As such, the district has addressed most criteria air pollutantsthrough basin wide programs and policies to prevent cumulative deterioration of air quality within the Basin. This projectwas referred to the district, and we received a referral response dated May 28, 2010. The District concluded that thisproposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality and would not be subject to District Rule 9510(Indirect Source Review); however, the project may be subject to some District Rules and Regulations which will be placedas conditions of approval.

Mitigation: None.

References: Referral response from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District dated May 28, 2010, SanJoaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - Regulation VIII Fugitive Dust/PM-10 Synopsis, Stanislaus County General Planand Support Documentation1.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or throughhabitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fishand Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat orother sensitive natural community identified in local or regionalplans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

23


c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protectedwetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, orother means?

X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any nativeresident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with establishednative resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the useof native wildlife nursery sites?

X

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protectingbiological resources, such as a tree preservation policy orordinance?

X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HabitatConservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, orother approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan?

X

Discussion: The site is not identified as being within a biologically sensitive area per the California Natural DiversityDatabase (CNDDB). It does not appear this project will result in impacts to endangered species or habitats, locallydesignated species, or wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors. The project is also not within any adopted HabitatConservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan. This project was referred to the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service andno comments have been received as of this date. The project site area is improved with pavement/parking, a huller/sheller,and a warehouse building.

Mitigation: None.

References: Application information, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1, California NaturalDiversity Database (CNDDB).

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ahistorical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of anarchaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologicalresource or site or unique geologic feature? X

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsideof formal cemeteries? X

Discussion: It does not appear this project will result in significant impacts to any archaeological or cultural resourcesdue to the fact that the property is planted in almonds and there is currently a huller/sheller operation on site with warehousebuildings where this project will be located. A condition of approval will be placed on the project that if any resources arefound, construction activities will halt at that time.

Mitigation: None.


24


VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverseeffects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated onthe most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault ZoningMap issued by the State Geologist for the area or basedon other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer toDivision of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, includingliquefaction? X

iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or thatwould become unstable as a result of the project, andpotentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

X

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1804.2 ofthe California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks tolife or property?

X

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ofseptic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems wheresewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

X

Discussion: As contained in Chapter 5 of the General Plan Support Documentation, the areas of the County subject tosignificant geologic hazard are located in the Diablo Range, west of Interstate 5; however, as per the 2007 CaliforniaBuilding Code, all of Stanislaus County is located within a geologic hazard zone (Seismic Design Category D, E, or F) anda soils test may be required at building permit application. Results from the soils test will determine if unstable or expansivesoils are present. If such soils are present, special engineering of the structure will be required to compensate for the soildeficiency. Any structures resulting from this project will be designed and built according to building standards appropriateto withstand shaking for the area in which they are constructed. An addition of a septic tank or alternative waste waterdisposal system would require the approval of the Department of Environmental Resources through the building permitprocess, which also takes soil type into consideration within the specific design requirements.

Mitigation: None.

References: California Building Code (2007), Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation - SafetyElement1.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly orindirectly, that may have a significant impact on theenvironment?

X

25


b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adoptedfor the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases?

X

Discussion: The proposed project should not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that mayhave a significant impact on the environment or conflict with any plan, policy or regulations adopted for the purpose ofreducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mitigation: None.

References: Applicant information, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would theproject:


Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmentthrough the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardousmaterials?

X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmentthrough reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditionsinvolving the release of hazardous materials into theenvironment?

X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutelyhazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quartermile of an existing or proposed school?

X

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardousmaterials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard tothe public or the environment?

X

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, wheresuch a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a publicairport or public use airport, would the project result in a safetyhazard for people residing or working in the project area?

X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would theproject result in a safety hazard for people residing or workingin the project area?

X

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with anadopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuationplan?

X

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including wherewildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residencesare intermixed with wildlands?

X

Discussion: No known hazardous materials are on site and the groundwater is not known to be contaminated in thisarea. Pesticide exposure is a risk in agricultural areas. Sources of exposure include contaminated groundwater which isconsumed and drift from spray applications. Application of sprays is strictly controlled by the Agricultural Commissioner andcan only be accomplished after first obtaining permits. The County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) isresponsible for overseeing hazardous materials in this area and has not indicated any particular concerns on the projectsite.

26


Mitigation: None.


IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischargerequirements? X

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interferesubstantially with groundwater recharge such that there wouldbe a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the localgroundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existingnearby wells would drop to a level which would not supportexisting land uses or planned uses for which permits have beengranted)?

X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orarea, including through the alteration of the course of a streamor river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosionor siltation on- or off-site?

X

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orarea, including through the alteration of the course of a streamor river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surfacerunoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

X

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed thecapacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems orprovide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mappedon a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance RateMap or other flood hazard delineation map?

X

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures whichwould impede or redirect flood flows? X

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injuryor death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of thefailure of a levee or dam?

X

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

Discussion: Areas subject to flooding have been identified in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Act.This project site is designated as “X - Outside 0.2 percent of Annual Chance Flood Hazard” flood zone and, as such, floodingis not an issue with respect to this project.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County Geographic Information System (GIS) - Flood Zone layer, Stanislaus County GeneralPlan and Support Documentation1.

27


X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Physically divide an established community? X

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, orregulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for thepurpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ornatural community conservation plan? X

Discussion: This project is consistent with the Agriculture designation and A-2-40 (General Agriculture) zoning of thesite. The features of this project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any habitat conservationplan or natural community conservation plan. This project is not known to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project.

Mitigation: None.


XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resourcethat would be of value to the region and the residents of thestate?

X

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineralresource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan?

X

Discussion: The location of all commercially viable mineral resources in Stanislaus County has been mapped by theState Division of Mines and Geology in Special Report 173. There are no known significant resources on the site.

Mitigation: None.


XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels inexcess of standards established in the local general plan ornoise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

X

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessivegroundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X

28


c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels inthe project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noiselevels in the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject?

X

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, wheresuch a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a publicairport or public use airport, would the project expose peopleresiding or working in the project area to excessive noiselevels?

X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would theproject expose people residing or working in the project area toexcessive noise levels?

X

Discussion: The Stanislaus County General Plan identifies noise levels up to 75 dB Ldn (or CNEL) as the normallyacceptable level of noise for agricultural, industrial, manufacturing, and other similar land uses. Noise impacts associatedwith on-site activities and traffic are not anticipated to exceed the normally acceptable level of noise. The currenthuller/sheller facility and warehouse buildings are surrounded by orchards on the west, east and south sides and will notchange with this proposed use. The construction phase of this project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels.

Mitigation: None.

References: Application information, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, eitherdirectly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or otherinfrastructure)?

X

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housingelsewhere?

X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating theconstruction of replacement housing elsewhere? X

Discussion: The proposed use of the site will not create significant service extensions or new infrastructure which couldbe considered as growth inducing. No housing or persons will be displaced by this project.

Mitigation: None.


29


XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physicalimpacts associated with the provision of new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, need for new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, the construction of which couldcause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintainacceptable service ratios, response times or other performanceobjectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? X

Police protection? X

Schools? X

Parks? X

Other public facilities? X

Discussion: The County has adopted Public Facilities Fees, as well as one for the Fire Facility Fees on behalf of theappropriate fire district, to address impacts to public services. Such fees are required to be paid at the time of buildingpermit issuance. Conditions of approval will be added to this project to insure the proposed development complies with allapplicable fire department standards with respect to access and water for fire protection.

Mitigation: None.

References: Referral response from Kenneth Slamon, Fire Marshal, on behalf of the Hughson Fire Protection District,dated May 18, 2010, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

XV. RECREATION -- PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhoodand regional parks or other recreational facilities such thatsubstantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur orbe accelerated?

X

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require theconstruction or expansion of recreational facilities which mighthave an adverse physical effect on the environment?

X

Discussion: The project will not have any impacts to parks and recreation.

Mitigation: None.


30


XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policyestablishing measures of effectiveness for the performance ofthe circulation system, taking into account all modes oftransportation including mass transit and non-motorized traveland relevant components of the circulation system, includingbut not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

X

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,including, but not limited to level of service standards and traveldemand measures, or other standards established by the countycongestion management agency for designated roads orhighways?

X

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either anincrease in traffic levels or a change in location that results insubstantial safety risks?

X

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)?

X

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regardingpublic transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwisedecrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

X

Discussion: This project will not increase traffic for the surrounding area, and neither the Stanislaus County Departmentof Public Works nor StanCOG sent a referral response noting traffic issues. The application does not propose any additionaltruck traffic or employees.

Mitigation: None.

References: Application information, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicableRegional Water Quality Control Board? X

b) Require or result in the construction of new water orwastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, the construction of which could cause significantenvironmental effects?

X

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm waterdrainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could cause significant environmentaleffects?

X

31


d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the projectfrom existing entitlements and resources, or are new orexpanded entitlements needed?

X

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatmentprovider which serves or may serve the project that it hasadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand inaddition to the provider’s existing commitments?

X

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity toaccommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulationsrelated to solid waste? X

Discussion: Limitations on providing services have not been identified and no referral responses have been receivednoting there could be any issues with this proposed project.

Mitigation: None.


XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish orwildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to dropbelow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant oranimal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of arare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate importantexamples of the major periods of California history orprehistory?

X

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”means that the incremental effects of a project are considerablewhen viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, theeffects of other current projects, and the effects of probablefuture projects)?

X

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will causesubstantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly orindirectly?

X

Discussion: Review of this project has not indicated any features which might significantly impact the environmentalquality of the site and/or the surrounding area.

I:\Staffrpt\UP\2010\UP 2010-07 - Assali Farms\Initial Study.wpd

1Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation adopted in October 1994, as amended. Optional andupdated elements of the General Plan and Support Documentation: Agricultural Element adopted on December 18, 2007;Housing Element adopted on April 20, 2010 and pending certification by the California Department of Housing and CommunityDevelopment; Circulation Element and Noise Element adopted on April 18, 2006.

32

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

NAME OF PROJECT: Use Permit Application No. 2010-07 - Assali Farms

LOCATION OF PROJECT: 8618 E. Whitmore Avenue, between Geer Road andBerkeley Avenue, in the Hughson area. APN: 018-055-017

PROJECT DEVELOPERS: Frank AssaliAssali Farm Properties, L.P.P.O. Box 69Hughson, CA 95326

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This is a request to allow the upgrading/expansion of anexisting almond huller/sheller on 57.8± acres. The upgrade would include building two warehouses(12,000 & 20,000 square feet) and the current 2,560 square foot huller/sheller building beingdemolished and replaced/expanded with a 6,400 square foot huller/sheller building. The requestincludes a five-year/two-phase expansion.

Based upon the Initial Study, dated July 12, 2010, the Environmental Coordinator finds as follows:

1. This project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, nor tocurtail the diversity of the environment.

2. This project will not have a detrimental effect upon either short-term or long-termenvironmental goals.

3. This project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulativelyconsiderable.

4. This project will not have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverseeffects upon human beings, either directly or indirectly.

The Initial Study and other environmental documents are available for public review at theDepartment of Planning and Community Development, 1010 10th Street, Suite 3400, Modesto,California.

Initial Study prepared by: Carole Maben, Associate Planner

Submit comments to: Stanislaus CountyPlanning and Community Development Department1010 10th Street, Suite 3400Modesto, California 95354

I:\Staffrpt\UP\2010\UP 2010-07 - Assali Farms\Negative Declaration.wpd

33

PROJECT: USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2010-07 - ASSALI FARMS

REFERRED TO:

2 W

K

30 D

AY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE YE

S

NO

WILL NOT HAVE

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT

IMPACT

NO COMMENT NON CEQA YE

S

NO

YES

NO

AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER X X X BUILDING PERMITS DIVISION X X X X X X CALTRANS DISTRICT 10 X X X X X X X CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE X X X CITY OF: HUGHSON X X X X COOPERATIVE EXTENSION X X X CORPS OF ENGINEERS X X X X COUNTY COUNSEL X X X DEPT OF CONSERVATION: Land Resources X X X X ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES X X X X X X X FIRE PROTECTION DIST: HUGHSON X X X X X X X FISH & GAME, DEPT OF X X X X HAZARDOUS MATERIALS X X X X X IRRIGATION DISTRICT: TURLOCK X X X X X X X LAFCO X X X MOSQUITO DISTRICT: TURLOCK X X X X MT VALLEY EMERGENCY MEDICAL X X X X NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION X X X PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC X X X X PARKS & FACILITIES X X X PUBLIC WORKS X X X X X X REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL X X X X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY APCD X X X X X X X SCHOOL DISTRICT 1: HUGHSON X X X X SHERIFF X X X StanCOG X X X STANISLAUS COUNTY FARM BUREAU X X X X STANISLAUS ERC X X X X X X STANISLAUS FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU X X X X X X SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 2: CHIESA X X X SURROUNDING LAND OWNERS X X TELEPHONE COMPANY: AT&T X X X X US FISH & WILDLIFE X X X X

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REFERRALS

RESPONDED RESPONSE MITIGATION MEASURES CONDITIONS

34

STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT · 2010. 8. 25. · stanislaus county planning...

Documents

Transcript of STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT · 2010. 8. 25. · stanislaus county planning...